Hinton hearing in New York

2020The testimony at the Hinton hearing ( see People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71 ) established a specific link between the officers' safety concerns and open-court testimony in this case ( see People v Ramos , 90 NY2d 490, 498-500 ; People v Martinez , 82 NY2d 436, 443 ).

2019Closure was proper since the officer's testimony at the Hinton hearing ( People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert den 410 US 911 [1973]) demonstrated that he expected to continue working undercover in the vicinity of defendant's arrest, and that testifying at trial in an open courtroom would compromise his undercover work and jeopardize his safety ( see People v Echevarria , 21 NY3d 1, 11 [2013], cert denied 571 US 1111 [2013]; People v Jones , 96 NY2d 213, 220 [2001]; People v Ramos , 90 NY2d 490, 498 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1002 [1997]).

2022At a Hinton hearing, the People established an overriding interest in protecting the undercover officer's safety that supported a limited closure of the courtroom ( see People v Echevarria, 21 NY3d 1, 12-14 [2013], cert denied sub nom.

2022At a Hinton hearing, the People established an overriding interest in protecting the undercover officer's safety that supported a limited closure of the courtroom ( see People v Echevarria, 21 NY3d 1, 12-14 [2013], cert denied sub nom.

2020The testimony at the Hinton hearing ( see People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71 ) established a specific link between the officers' safety concerns and open-court testimony in this case ( see People v Ramos , 90 NY2d 490, 498-500 ; People v Martinez , 82 NY2d 436, 443 ).

2007Testimony from one of the investigators at the Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]), established, inter alia, that they were still active in undercover work in the area of the defendant’s arrest, they had identified suspects who had not yet been arrested, and their safety would be jeopardized and they would likely be prevented from conducting further undercover work if compelled to testify in open court (see People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 442-443 [1993]; People v Lopez, 19 AD3d 510, 511 [2005]; People v Green, 244 AD2d 571 [1997]; People v Wel

2019The evidence at a Hinton hearing established an overriding interest that warranted closure of the courtroom to the general public ( see Waller v Georgia , 467 US 39 [1984]; People v Echevarria , 21 NY3d 1, 12-14 [2013], cert denied sub nom.

2018The evidence at a Hinton hearing established an overriding interest that warranted a limited closure of the courtroom during an undercover officer's testimony ( see Waller v Georgia , 467 US 39 [1984]), and the closure did not violate defendant's right to a public trial.

2016It is undisputed that the evidence presented at a Hinton hearing did not demonstrate that the “exclusion of [defendant’s family members was] necessary to protect the interest advanced by the People in support of closure” (People v Nieves, 90 NY2d 426, 430 [1997]; see also Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39 [1984]).

2016It is undisputed that the evidence presented at a Hinton hearing did not demonstrate that the “exclusion of [defendant’s family members was] necessary to protect the interest advanced by the People in support of closure” (People v Nieves, 90 NY2d 426, 430 [1997]; see also Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39 [1984]).

2023A “Hinton hearing” is often required in cases where closure is sought to protect the identity of an undercover police officer (see People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 56 [1991]; Jones, 47 NY2d at 414-415 ; Hinton, 31 NY2d at 74-76 ).

2007Testimony from one of the investigators at the Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]), established, inter alia, that they were still active in undercover work in the area of the defendant’s arrest, they had identified suspects who had not yet been arrested, and their safety would be jeopardized and they would likely be prevented from conducting further undercover work if compelled to testify in open court (see People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 442-443 [1993]; People v Lopez, 19 AD3d 510, 511 [2005]; People v Green, 244 AD2d 571 [1997]; People v Wel

2025We conclude that those contentions are not preserved inasmuch as defendant did not raise them before the trial court and he did not request a Hinton hearing on the issue ( see People v Everson , 158 AD3d 1119 , 1123 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1081 [2018], reconsideration denied 31 NY3d 1147 [2018], cert denied 586 US 1198 [2019]; People v Legere , 81 AD3d 746, 751 [2d Dept 2011]; see generally People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71, 73-76 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]).

2025We conclude that those contentions are not preserved inasmuch as defendant did not raise them before the trial court and he did not request a Hinton hearing on the issue ( see People v Everson , 158 AD3d 1119 , 1123 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1081 [2018], reconsideration denied 31 NY3d 1147 [2018], cert denied 586 US 1198 [2019]; People v Legere , 81 AD3d 746, 751 [2d Dept 2011]; see generally People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71, 73-76 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]).

2019Closure was proper since the officer's testimony at the Hinton hearing ( People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert den 410 US 911 [1973]) demonstrated that he expected to continue working undercover in the vicinity of defendant's arrest, and that testifying at trial in an open courtroom would compromise his undercover work and jeopardize his safety ( see People v Echevarria , 21 NY3d 1, 11 [2013], cert denied 571 US 1111 [2013]; People v Jones , 96 NY2d 213, 220 [2001]; People v Ramos , 90 NY2d 490, 498 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1002 [1997]).

2019Closure was proper since the officer's testimony at the Hinton hearing ( People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert den 410 US 911 [1973]) demonstrated that he expected to continue working undercover in the vicinity of defendant's arrest, and that testifying at trial in an open courtroom would compromise his undercover work and jeopardize his safety ( see People v Echevarria , 21 NY3d 1, 11 [2013], cert denied 571 US 1111 [2013]; People v Jones , 96 NY2d 213, 220 [2001]; People v Ramos , 90 NY2d 490, 498 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1002 [1997]).

2010The detective testified at a Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]) that she recently had worked undercover on several cases with the other undercover officer testifying at trial, that they had identified a suspect who had not yet been arrested, and that her safety and the safety of that other officer, as well as the open case on which they jointly had worked, would be jeopardized if her identity was revealed (see People v Hodge, 53 AD3d 507 [2008]; People v Owens, 43 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2007]; People v Mendez, 5 AD3d 400, 401 [2004]).

2010The detective testified at a Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]) that she recently had worked undercover on several cases with the other undercover officer testifying at trial, that they had identified a suspect who had not yet been arrested, and that her safety and the safety of that other officer, as well as the open case on which they jointly had worked, would be jeopardized if her identity was revealed (see People v Hodge, 53 AD3d 507 [2008]; People v Owens, 43 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2007]; People v Mendez, 5 AD3d 400, 401 [2004]).

2025We conclude that those contentions are not preserved inasmuch as defendant did not raise them before the trial court and he did not request a Hinton hearing on the issue ( see People v Everson , 158 AD3d 1119 , 1123 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1081 [2018], reconsideration denied 31 NY3d 1147 [2018], cert denied 586 US 1198 [2019]; People v Legere , 81 AD3d 746, 751 [2d Dept 2011]; see generally People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71, 73-76 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]).

2025We conclude that those contentions are not preserved inasmuch as defendant did not raise them before the trial court and he did not request a Hinton hearing on the issue ( see People v Everson , 158 AD3d 1119 , 1123 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1081 [2018], reconsideration denied 31 NY3d 1147 [2018], cert denied 586 US 1198 [2019]; People v Legere , 81 AD3d 746, 751 [2d Dept 2011]; see generally People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71, 73-76 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]).

2003Since defendant’s arguments at the Hinton hearing were completely different from those he now raises on appeal, defendant’s contention that the courtroom was improperly closed to the general public during the undercover officer’s testimony is unpreserved (see People v Lugo, 233 AD2d 197 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1037 [1997]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

2003Since defendant’s arguments at the Hinton hearing were completely different from those he now raises on appeal, defendant’s contention that the courtroom was improperly closed to the general public during the undercover officer’s testimony is unpreserved (see People v Lugo, 233 AD2d 197 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1037 [1997]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

2023A “Hinton hearing” is often required in cases where closure is sought to protect the identity of an undercover police officer (see People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 56 [1991]; Jones, 47 NY2d at 414-415 ; Hinton, 31 NY2d at 74-76 ).

2018Although the defendant contends on appeal that he was denied his right to a public trial when the trial court excluded two people whom he claimed were his family members from the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police detective ( see US Const, 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4; People v Jones , 47 NY2d 409, 414 ), the defendant's objection before the court conducted a Hinton hearing ( see People v Hinton , 31 NY2d 71 ) was limited to the closing of the courtroom to the general public.

1998The Hinton hearing testimony “established the necessary spatial and temporal relationship among the courthouse, the location of defendant’s arrest, and the anticipated geographic location of the undercover officer’s future investigative work” (People v Brown, 214 AD2d 438, 439 , lv denied 86 NY2d 791 ).

1998The Hinton hearing testimony “established the necessary spatial and temporal relationship among the courthouse, the location of defendant’s arrest, and the anticipated geographic location of the undercover officer’s future investigative work” (People v Brown, 214 AD2d 438, 439 , lv denied 86 NY2d 791 ).

2011Through the evidence adduced during the Hinton hearing, the People also satisfied their burden, under People v Waver ( 3 NY3d 748 [2004]), of establishing a need for the officers’ anonymity (see People v Smith, 33 AD3d 462 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 849 [2007]), and defendant failed to establish any prejudice from not knowing the officer’s name (see People v Granger, 26 AD3d 268 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 894 [2006]).

2011Through the evidence adduced during the Hinton hearing, the People also satisfied their burden, under People v Waver ( 3 NY3d 748 [2004]), of establishing a need for the officers’ anonymity (see People v Smith, 33 AD3d 462 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 849 [2007]), and defendant failed to establish any prejudice from not knowing the officer’s name (see People v Granger, 26 AD3d 268 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 894 [2006]).

2004The undercover officer testified at a Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]) that he continued to work in an undercover capacity in the area where the defendant was arrested, that two of his cases from the area of the defendant’s arrest remained open with lost subjects, and that his safety would be jeopardized if his identity was revealed (see People v Jones, 96 NY2d 213 [2001]; People v Hargett, 293 AD2d 757 [2002]).

2004The undercover officer testified at a Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]) that he continued to work in an undercover capacity in the area where the defendant was arrested, that two of his cases from the area of the defendant’s arrest remained open with lost subjects, and that his safety would be jeopardized if his identity was revealed (see People v Jones, 96 NY2d 213 [2001]; People v Hargett, 293 AD2d 757 [2002]).

2006During a Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]), the defendant objected to the exclusion of certain family members from the courtroom, to wit, his mother and brother (see People v Garcia, 95 NY2d 946, 947 [2000]; People v Bass, 259 AD2d 419, 420 [1999]).

2006During a Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]), the defendant objected to the exclusion of certain family members from the courtroom, to wit, his mother and brother (see People v Garcia, 95 NY2d 946, 947 [2000]; People v Bass, 259 AD2d 419, 420 [1999]).